Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Yeah, actually that does work, since you pass the km_type, we can use
> that. But I would rather not respin this for 2.6.21; getting this
> 100% right can be tricky, and we've already done a good deal of
> testing on this patch the way it is.
It seems fairly low risk to me; its basically the same structure with
the same calls happening in the same order, but just slightly rearranged
in the source. Of course, if I'd seen this patch earlier I could have
given you earlier feedback...
> Do you have any objection to me creating a patch for -mm tree that
> implements kmap_atomic_pte the way you have described above and
> attaching it to the Xen patch series, but leaving the current patch as
> is for now?
Not particularly, but it seems odd to put something in knowing its going
to be immediately replaced. What's the urgency?
> Thanks, (and thanks for the suggestion - I was a little worried about
> how it would play with Xen when HIGHPTE support came around, but it
> looks like it will work for both of us with just one paravirt-op).
Yeah, the kpte_clear_flush change helped as well. I have a patch to
make that into a pvop as well, since its useful to do the clear+flush in
a single call.
J
